User talk:IronGargoyle/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Orphaned non-free image File:Chocolate Rain.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chocolate Rain.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

G.A.L-P.L.G

Another editor has posted G.A.L-P.L.G in AfD. I added my opinion, and noticed that although you checked the Laser article, you did not look at Laser harp. I noted as thus in the AfD discussion, and I wondered if you wanted to comment. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Biased AR Wiki DRV close

I would like to register my very significant disappointment with your rationale for this close being the endorsement of a G10 speedy deletion.

The criteria for speedy deletion should only apply "in the most obvious cases". Given that so many users and administrators in good standing hold strong views on both sides of the question about whether G10 applied I honestly do not understand how it can be "obvious" that it does. Given that and the explicit requirement for CSD to be applied only "in the the most obvious cases", then surely there is no question that speedy deletion is not applicable.

As you can probably tell, I hold strong views about this case (although I have no opinion regarding the Arabic Wikipedia - I can't read the language so I wouldn't know a biased article if it hit me in the face), and so it would be impossible for me to give an unbiased summary of the discussion. This is therefore not a complaint about the outcome (that the userbox remains deleted), but about the rationale you have given for how you arrived at that outcome. Despite your explicit limiting to this one case, I strongly feel that you have weakened the safeguards against out of process speedy deletions. Had your rationale been based on the strength of the arguments for endorsing or overturning that were not about the speedy deletion, then I would have accepted unreservedly the outcome either way, even though I would (and do) disagree with the endorsement.

If you reply on this page, please leave a {{talkback}} tag at user talk:Thryduulf. Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I fully agree with your close and commend you for your well-written, well-thought out closing statement. Cunard (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

otheruses4 to about

Hello,

I was wondering if you could employ your bot to change {{otheruses4}} to {{about}}.

otheruses4 is deprecated by about, and it redirects to about. Otheruses4 is an old template and is causing confusion. It is also a more lengthy template to type out. TIA174.3.123.220 (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been claimed that a bot request for this was already denied, so please double-check before doing anything. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirect Azúcar

You were the one who deleted Azúcar and I was wondering if you could redirect Azúcar to its album Amor, Familia Y Respeto. Chelo61 (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Boba Phat at AFD again

An AFD you participated in 6 months ago, is being done again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boba_Phat_(2nd_nomination) Dream Focus 08:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

nuisance edits

IP 130.159.17.137 is still making nuisance edits - I have just reversed one on the Lewis Roberts page and just checked a number of his or hers previous insertions of childish nuisance nonsense. I noticed you previously blocked him or her. Can you please see if he or she can be blocked again? Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The IP you are referring to is a shared IP, which means that it is used by many editors. I don't see the most recent edit you cite as being of particularly high quality, but I also don't see it as unambiguous vandalism either. Given that it was one edit, and it was not repeated many times, I have to decline the request to block this IP. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP stuff...

First off, apologies if I stepped in anything with the recently created/deleted redir. But I'm now curious -- what goes on here? I'm presuming the person in question complained, but since his tie-in to the documentary is a matter of record elsewhere (the IMDB entry for the movie was one place I quickly found it), how far can one go in requesting they be completely expunged from WP?

Understand that I'm not protesting the decision, nor do I have any particular interest in having him in or out of WP; this is truly intellectual curiosity about how far someone is actually able to go in getting their name yoinked from the encyclopedia when their name is a matter of public record. Cheers, NapoliRoma (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source. There is no reason to have the subject's name zoom to the top of the Google rankings of "angriest man in the world" for having the misfortune of becoming an internet meme and then getting a Wikipedia entry about that internet meme. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of "File:Mike-patton-faith-no-more.jpg"

Care to explain why this was deleted? I know it was deleted the first time because I didn't argue its case correctly according to some unwritten rule in wikipedia's bizarre sub-laws. But the second time I uploaded it, I correctly tagged it with the appropriate image tags. It's free to use for noncommercial purposes with attribution. I made everything as clear as possible, who the creator was, where the image came from, etc. etc. etc. - but still its deleted? Why? How can the image make its way back to wikipedia, especially considering that as far as I can see, it fits all of wikipedia's criteria for an acceptable image. -Gohst (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't upload images that are only licensed for noncommercial purposes unless there is a valid claim of fair use. That was the reason why the image was deleted the first time and also why the image was deleted the second time. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand... Wikipedia is a noncommercial use, yes? It's also a very good image. It's licensed to be used in exactly this sort of circumstance as long as we follow the licensees one caveat - that he get credit. Which is exactly what we did. I don't see what part of doing this could make it an "offensive" image which warrants its "speedy removal". -Gohst (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is noncommercial. However, part of Wikipedia's mission is that it provides content that is free from most intellectual property restrictions. Wikipedia has come to the general consensus that noncommercial-only use is too restrictive. I can certainly understand your confusion and frustration. Wikipedia's rules on licensing are arcane and confusing at the best of times. Many valid arguments can also be made in defense of your position. That said, I'm just following the rules that Wikipedia has laid down. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ty Wood

Re: Ty Wood, I was just about to put a substitute PROD on the article as I still feels he fails WP:ARTIST. The banner came back that this was a AfD deleted article known as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ty Wood. I agree with this 2006 AfD as in three years there as been no major roles for this teen actor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morenooso (talk • contribs)

A PROD sounds like it would be entirely appropriate. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. And, nothing against you, but I *really* felt the same back when I first nominated this article for CSD that it failed WP:N. I've been busy working on saving/editting other articles as I am moving on in my Wikipedian experience. I did not notice that its creator had removed the Speedy tag otherwised I would have addressed this sooner. ----moreno oso (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Psychoactive animals

You declined a db-nocontext speedy on this article (quite rightly). It was earlier tagged as a copyvio of this page; did you see that in the history and mean to decline it as well, or was it an oversight? —Korath (Talk) 08:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I declined the speedy on the merits of the db-nocontext alone (or lack thereof). I wouldn't call it an oversight, as declining an invalid speedy deletion tag does not necessitate checking past revisions (unlike accepting the tag and deleting the article). Thank you for pointing out the history however. I have speedily deleted the article per CSD G12. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For beating me to vandalism reversion on Roy Halladay, then beating me to warning the IP, then beating me to checking his contributions and reverting the other vandalism: you win this barnstar. Cheers! — KV5 • Talk • 16:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And then beating me to blocking him too... — KV5 • Talk • 16:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha... thank you. :) IronGargoyle (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Gargoylebot?

Hey, do you still run that bot that orphans templates? If so could you get it to orphan this one? Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:SJFA_football_league_system. Thanks a ton! Peace, delldot ∇. 22:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I do, but someone else seems to have already done this. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well dang, that was fast. Thanks though, I'm glad your bot is still around! Peace, delldot ∇. 03:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Marshall University Libertarians

I would like you to reconsider the deletion you made of the wiki page Marshall University Libertarians. This page was deleted as it was still being completed and I, the page creator,was unable to add our highlighting features as a group which is our activities and activism we bring to the Marshall University Campus. I am almost believing this to be a biased, prejudiced deletion due to the fact that we are a libertarian group and are on the outside of more popular political groups. Please reconsider this deletion and allow me to complete the page by adding out activities. I believe this does meet the wikipedia guidelines for a wiki page because it is an important group the Marshall University campus and Huntington, WV. We have done many things for our area including community service and political awareness and this is in the general interest of the public who wants to know about libertarian activism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hossdavidson (talk • contribs) 18:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have again reviewed the deleted revisions of the Marshal University Libertarians page and have come to the same conclusion I did earlier. The article was indeed eligible for speedy deletion criteria A7. The article did not credibly assert importance. I can assure you that the decision to delete this article had nothing to do with the political affiliation of the group. I would have deleted an article on any small college club as quickly as this one. This deletion can, of course, be appealed at deletion review. I would suggest you review speedy deletion policy, verifiability policy, conflict of interest guidelines and notability guidelines before you consider this, however. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Undead Dinosaurs From Hell

I am personally a member of this band, my name is Nicholas Purkey. We have a MySpace page for our band, as well as a Facebook page. We also have music up on our MySpace page. You can visit it here. I am strongly disappointed that the page was deleted, and will be recreating it. If deleted again, action will be taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickasaur (talk • contribs)

Please review the criteria for speedy deletion. All articles on musical groups must credibly assert importance. The article "Undead Dinosaurs From Hell" did not credibly assert importance and so was deleted. Please also review Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest, notability and reliable sources. If you recreate the article without addressing these concerns, I can assure you that it will be speedily deleted again. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, information regarding this was not available at the time of creation. I personally was waiting to place the information about "The Wood of the Suicides Prevention" on the page until the website was started and the organization had opened its doors. However, this has been done now. Please review the article, actions have been taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Automaticshutter (talk • contribs)

File:Madonna Ciccone.jpg

Hello IronGargoyle, I was referred to you by User:Explicit regarding the licensing of the above image. Will you please check whether it is correct or not? If not what can be exactly done to correct it as the subject passed away long back in 1963. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Eh... the sourcing is not really good enough to determine the photo's public domain status. Realistically I'd say it is probably about a 50/50 call if the image is in the public domain or not. It looks a bit like a personal photo (thus not published), but some qualities of the image do visually suggest that it was published at some point (B&W and image pixelation). It was clearly taken before 1978, but I can't think of many reasons why it would have been published before 1978. Madonna (the entertainer) released her debut album in 1983. It looks like it already has a non-free image rationale in the file history. I would suggest adding one of the templates at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you IronGargoyle. Its best to delete it I believe. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

4 more categories FYI

Hi Iron: Thanks for making the changes following the wide consensus to do so at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent. During that DRV I had stated that it should be the basis to change similarly problematic ones. I have been combing through the categories and have come up with a few more categories that should have been included (it was already full with 24 categories as it is), some of these categories were also changed at the same time and in the same way by the notoriously hyper-active Cydebot bot:

• Category:American Jews of English descent back to Category:English-American Jews, per English American+Jews=English American Jews.
• Category:American Jews of Scottish descent back to Category:Scottish-American Jews, per Scottish American+Jews=Scottish American Jews.
• Category:American Jews of British descent back to Category:British-American Jews, per British American+Jews=British American Jews.
• Category:American Jews of Greek descent back to Category:Greek-American Jews, per Greek American+Jews=Greek American Jews.

There may be a few more. Can the changes be made based on the closed DRV or do they need to be nominated for "speedies"? I assume the former. There may be some more, in the meantime these need correcting, Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you mean the hyphenated versions of the Fooian-American Jews, correct? The targets you cite above have never been moved or deleted. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Iron: Thanks for asking. Yes, the hyphenated ones! If you look at the editing histories of the sub-category Category:American Jews of British descent here and it's sub-categories Category:American Jews of English descent here and Category:American Jews of Scottish descent and here you will note that what happened to them is exactly what happened to the 24 categories of Jews -- nominated for "speedies" and changed by Cydebot without discussion or consensus -- and they fit the pattern for the 24 others as cited in the DRV case, but because space was limited not all cases could be cited, hence the inclusivity of "American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent" with "fooian descent" serving to include whatever else is included or not mentioned due to limitations of space but it being perfectly clear that they are obviously included. In the case of Category:American Jews of Greek descent [1] the history shows that two editors, one anonymous, created the category in line with the changes that were made by the Cydebot in the other exactly similar categories. Hope this clarifies things in order to make the required changes. I am still looking over and giving some thought to a few more required changes like this. Thanks a lot! IZAK (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for giving this matter your attention and for making the changes. IZAK (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Armed Bear Common Lisp

A tag has been placed on Armed Bear Common Lisp, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The outcome of this DRV supersedes the CSD G4. The article should be maintained as a redirect unless there is a consensus for deletion at RfD. I would also like to note that the article would not have been subject to CSD G4, as it had been expanded substantially from the version that was deleted at AfD. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Very well. After reading your comments, I was going to stick a note on the talk page including that DRV link. But as I did so, I realized there is likely a template out there that says "this page was subject to a DRV debate". But I cannot right now find a link to such a template. Are you familiar with such off the top of your head? (Not asking you to use time investigating/searching for such, just hoping you happen to know.) - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

{{Olddrvfull}} would be the template that you are looking for. It's kind of hidden away and not included in the deletion process page, so I never got in the habit of using it. I probably should though, for reasons just such as this. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Galvao bird

Could you please help with the speedy deletion of Galvao bird? The article constitutes vandalism aimed at supporting an Internet hoax explained on the article Galvão Bueno. There is no bird called Galvão in Brazil and the speedy removal tag is constantly removed from the article. Scarps (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently investigating this. Once I make a decision I will either delete or AfD it, unless someone has gotten to it first. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Please do not confuse blank pages with redirects , as you did with the page Crayfish. Reverting too hastily can confuse editors, and is overall not helpful to the Wikipedia project; furthermore, reverting a page is not the same as deleting it. -98.80.24.12 (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid cut-and-paste moves. If you would like to move Crayfish to Crawfish, please see the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Mate. Stop removing my edits. Who do you tink you are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.234.206 (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edits (e.g. [2]) were silly and unencyclopedic in tone and bordering on vandalism. Please review What Wikipedia is not before making further edits. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Userpage Shield Barnstar

		The Userpage Shield
		Thank you for all that you do. Moxy (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar. :) IronGargoyle (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Nicologik & Zephyr

Article you just deleted has been recreated, maybe a little salt is needed. Mo ainm~Talk 10:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Matthew Hoh

Hi IronGargoyle. Thanks for closing the DRV discussion and restoring the article to my userspace. Unfortunately I don't think I'm able to move it back to mainspace. Also, is it possible to get th discussion page restored? Thanks again. Sorry to trouble you. Have a great weekend... Freakshownerd (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's odd. I don't see anything that would prevent you from being able to move the article to mainspace. You certainly have enough edits, and the target article does not seem to be protected in any way. I've undeleted the talk page (there wasn't much there), so if you continue to have problems moving the article, and you feel like it is ready to go, just drop me a line. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any move button or tag to hit. I tried searching for it with control F also. Any ideas? Freakshownerd (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. It probably depends on your web browser and the interface you've selected. I know Wikipedia changed its default interface several months ago. I'm not particularly fond of the new interface, so I kept the old version and so I'm not likely to be helpful in answering questions about the new interface. I moved the article to mainspace in the meantime. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Per your comment I figured out how to adopt the old interface (by pushing the "take me back tab" at the top of the page) and now I see a move tab right up tree at the top of the page. Hopefully that will solve a lot of problems I've been having! Thanks very much for your help. Much appreciated. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality

How is this edit not constructive?

Pdorion (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You're fine. See my note on your talk page. I rolled back the wrong article because my computer was lagging a bit. Sorry about that. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Pkjacob89

as you are watching this article, the user is now continually adding copyrighted material. LibStar (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you specify where exactly the copyrighted material in the Fred Hollows Foundation page is coming from? If you can, please continue to remove it and specify the link in the edit summary. You can also use {{subst:copyvio|url=source(s)}} to bring a complex copyright problem to a wider discussion. Finally, you can use {{db-g12|url=sourceurl}} if the copyright violation is blatant and encompasses the entirety of content on the page. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

see my edit summaries at Fred Hollows Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), User:Pkjacob89 has been continually adding info direct from the foundation's website which is clearly copyright. LibStar (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

also all the pictures look suspiciously copyrighted especially those with a photo credit to a photographer. LibStar (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. A lot of those images are uploaded to Commons, though, and need to be dealt with there. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

76

Hello. I already asked Fastily but I guess he's stepped out. this user is abusing his talk page privileges. Also, could hide his edit summaries? They are very gross and harassing. Thanks.  – Tommy [message] 20:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if I missed anything. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you  – Tommy [message] 21:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

We had a near collision

at Daniel Burnham - I went to check my UNDO and it was not there. 'cause you got there first. Life is good. Einar akaCarptrash (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's only Wikipedia!

You know that more than half the planet doesn't take Wikipedia seriously don't you? It's riddled with inaccuracies and the Hive Mind ensure that anything that they don't agree with (factual or not) doesn't stay on it for very long. If you think you're making a useful contribution to the world you're deluding yourself!

lots of love,

Former Wikipedia Editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.237.61 (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For all your Huggle reverts. I use Huggle myself, and you keep getting there first anyway. :) dffgd (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, I seriously don't know why I didn't download the program years ago. You've beaten me to a couple pages yourself. :) IronGargoyle (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I try to beat you to pages...because I wouldn't revert much otherwise. Seriously though, thanks for your vandalism reverting, the more Hugglers the better! dffgd (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

What the hell did I do wrong? Everyone knows that wiggers live in either small rural towns or the all-white crime-free suburbs. Go to any suburban shopping mall and see how many wiggers are there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.239.87 (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings and thanks

Greetings IronGargoyle - thanks for that. IOU1. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing! IronGargoyle (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Steven Pinker vandal

Hi and thanks for your help with the Steven Pinker article. I feel like I really tried to work with that anonymous IP editor, but I wouldn't mind a little reality check, if you have a moment. Was there anything about that situation I could have done better? -- Bgpaulus (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I think you were fine. You added in more detail about what your concerns were, which is always a good thing. The IP editor kept edit-warring to add in controversial and unreferenced negative information about a living person. That's perfectly reasonable to revert on sight, warn, and the block if the behavior persists after warning. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, IG. I sincerely appreciate it. Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yogurtland

Hi, IronGargoyle. Would you fix the copy and paste move of Yogurtland by history merging it with User:TrbleClef/Yogurtland? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page so quickly. Grafen (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Moonsault Scramble‎

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Block

May I please ask for a longer block on 96.233.63.233 (talk · contribs). The previous block was for a period of two weeks. It may save us some work. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 00:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I extended the block to one month. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That will help. Dawnseeker2000 01:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Dude

How did you find that so quickly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.126.183 (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've got mad skills. How about contributing constructively now? IronGargoyle (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Dawnseeker2000 01:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Go Huggle! :) dffgd 01:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Samir Kuntar

How am I violating npov policy by stating that samir kuntar is a murderer and terrorist? Sorry for deleting everything, I just have no idea how to contact you otherwise. 69.86.233.94 (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPOV. The goal of Wikipedia is to report facts from a neutral point of view. The facts are already cited in the article (relating to his murder conviction). The language you added (repeatedly and against consensus) is not needed and only serves to slant the article in a particular direction. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Karthik Iyengar

Hi, can you do something about this Authorhop aka Karthik Iyengar who added his name, linkedin profile and book in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_OK_Please

It is depressing. I want to do something about it, but am just new to wikipedia and I am figuring my way around. Thanks. Sagaro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC).

I removed the promotional material. If you click the history tab, you can see all the past revisions and easily change back to a version before inappropriate promotional material or vandalism is added. Hopefully this helps for future reference. You might want to also check out the new contributors' help page. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Gotcha. Won't bug for such petty issues in future. :D --Sagaro (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It wasn't a petty issue. I think that removing biased and promotional edits can often be one of the trickiest things to do on Wikipedia. Often promotional material is sandwiched between other more legitimate edits, or it accompanies other valid material for the article. I provided the extra link because I go through periods of editing inactivity and it may take me a while to respond, depending on when you message me—whereas you should usually get a quick reply at one of the noticeboards. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

hey

the Anderson Silva page is still messed up but you protected it. why don't you revert it to the nearest clean edit? thanks Someone65 (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I missed that there was a broken reference in there. Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thankspam:)

I just wanted to drop by and say thanks for the barnstar! I'm not quite finished with the categorization of the articles, but I definitely appreciate the 'star! Thanks again, cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 23:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC) :)

Thankspam too

For your quick action at IP 121.54.2.74. Drmies (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:212.85.0.186

• Don't you think that this IP should be blocked Indefinitely?Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 13:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No, IPs are sometimes reassigned to other owners, so they should rarely, if ever, be blocked indefinitely. Given the long-term abuse from this IP, I did assign a block that was longer than the typical day-long block that is assigned to most IP addresses. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

sockpuppet systematically reverting your edits

Hello IronGargoyle, just stopping by to point out that IP editor 98.223.95.42 is presently systematically reverting the deletions you performed on a number of television station articles this afternoon. It's extremely likely that it is the same editor that was recently performing exactly the same sorts of edits on these articles and was subsequently warned and blocked. This also appears to be the same editor who was subsequently blocked for running a stable of sockpuppets in an attempt at supporting their edits.[3]. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh...

You missed this. The IP which had been previously vandalizing your userpage put that there...and then you made an edit to the page, so I couldn't rollback! Good thing I have your User/Talk pages on my watchlist. –dffgd 00:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I tend to be pretty oblivious to my own userspace when I'm not on Huggle. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)